These 3 appeals, which arise out of Miscellaneous Cases No. 1, 2 and 3 of 1961 of the Court of the Munsiff, Kamalpur, have been heard together as common questions of fact and law are involved in all the 3 appeals and the present judgment will govern all the 3 appeals. (2) The facts leading up to these appeals ire that the respondent instituted Rent Suits Nos. 3, 4 and 19 of 1950, against the appoint 'or recovery of arrears of rent for a certain period in respect of three holdings and .:l«o for eviction from those holdings. The defendant dis­puted the rate of rent and also the area of hold­ings as mentioned in the plaints. The learned Munsiff decreed the suits on 2G-7-195S accepting, however,, the rate of rent and area of .he holdings as given by the defendant. The lecrees directed that if the defendant failed to jay up the decretal dues within six months from the date of the decrees, he would be liable to be evicted from the holdings. The plaintiff preferred appeals against the decisions of the lower Court, but the appellate Court dismissed the three ap­peals on 16-5-60 leaving the question of the rate of rent and the area of the holdings open. The appellate decrees were signed on 24-5-60. The decree-holder, thereafter, started three Execution cases, namely, Execution Cases Nos. 32, 34 and 38 }f I960 for the eviction of the defendant from the rent claimed holdings. The defendant object­ed to the maintainability of the Execution Case 3n the ground that the lower Court decrees had merged in the appellate Court decrees and it was only the appellate Court decrees which could be executed and since the appellate Court decrees did not contain any direction for eviction of the defendant or time limit for depositing the decratal dues, he could not be evicted from the holdings. It was also contended by him that since the plaintiff had brought Rent Suits for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the same holdings 'or subsequent period, it should be taken that he had waived his right to enter into the land on failure of the defendant to deposit the decretal dues within the time allowed by the lower Court. The learned Munsiff negative his contention and rejected his petition under Sec. 47, C. P. C. (3) Being aggrieved by this order, the ap­pellant Kangali Dhubi preferred appeals to the court of learned District Judge. The learned Dis­trict Judge rejected the appeals. Now he has come to this Court in second appeal. (4) The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised the same contentions which he raised before the learned Munsiff and the learned District Judge, but they are not at all convincing. (5) In this case it is an admitted fact that the defendant appellant did not deposit the decretal dues within 6 months from the date of the passing of the appellate Court decrees. When the appellate Court confirmed the decrees of the lower Court, a fresh period of 6 months should be taken to have been given from the date of the appellate Court decrees. It was not necessary for the appellate Court to say so specifically in the decrees. On this point the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Mt. Sita Kumari v. Ramnath Nonia, AIR 1949 Pat 514 may be cited. In that case a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of land entitled the plaintiff to recover possession on his depositing- certain amount within 3 months from the date of the decree. The decree was confirmed in appeal by the defendant when the time specified for making the deposit had already expired. It was held that the case was one in which a fresh starting point was implied in the decrees of the appellate Court. The lower Courts were, therefore, perfectly right in rejecting the contention of the judgment-deb­tor. (6) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondent decree-holder has waiv­ed his claim of eviction by instituting- subsequent suits for rent on the same holding. But the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate this point and hence came to an erroneous finding. This argu­ment is without any merit. The fact that the plaintiff has instituted rent suits for recovery of rent for subsequent period in respect of the same holdings cannot show that he has waived his right to the forfeiture clause contained in the decree of the lower Court. (7) There is no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed with costs. Plea­der's fee Rs. 25/- in each appeal. Appeals dismissed.